Navigation
Topics
Log In
Log Out
:
Special Search
New Today
New This Week
Advanced Search
Tree View
Your Account
Edit Profile
Register
Forgot Password
Tools
Help/Instructions
Policies
CLICK STATE TO SEE:
"WATCH LIST"
Marked with: 
"OPEN & HONEST"
Marked with: 
...
|
| (TN) 10/08 - Vote-flipping reported f... |
|
| Author |
Message |
    
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9894
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? 
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 7:28 pm: | 
|
Summary: This was the ES&S iVotronic, same voting machine caught flipping votes in two West Virginia counties. Votes peeled off to the other major party candidate, or to any smaller party candidate have the same effect: Disenfranchisement for the voter and political disadvantage for the candidate the voter was trying to vote for. You can find all counties with iVotronics by skimming through the state sections at Black Box Voting. If you will vote on a DRE, bring a cell phone camera and start capturing the screen, discreetly, BEFORE you see any votes flip. Prove it, this is important.
Sent by e-mail to Black Box Voting, from David Earnhardt, producer of the film UNCOUNTED - Oct. 20 2008
Vote Flipping in Davidson County, Tennessee
" My wife, Patricia Earnhardt, had an early voting experience here in Nashville, Tennessee, where she saw her vote momentarily flip from Barack Obama to Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. She voted on a ouch-screen paperless machine. Here is her story:
"A poll worker directed me to a touch screen voting machine & instructedme how t o use it. I touched "Obama" for president & nothing lit up. I
touched 2 or 3 more times & still nothing lit up. I called the poll worker back over to tell him I was having a problem. He said I just needed to touch it more lightly. I tried it 2 or 3 more times more lightly with the poll worker watching & still nothing lit up. The poll worker then touched it for me twice — nothing lit up. The third time he touched the Obama button, the Cynthia McKinney space lit up! The McKinney button was located five rows below the Obama button. The poll worker just kind of laughed and cancelled the vote. He hit the Obama button again & it finally lit up. I continued on to cast the rest of my votes. After completing the process & reviewing my votes, I went to the VOTE page, hit the VOTE button & nothing happened. Again after several tries, I called the poll worker over & he finally got the machine to register my votes. Hurray — I voted! — or did I? I left the polling place feeling uncertain." Patricia Earnhardt -
Friday, Oct. 17 - Howard School Building - Nashville, Tennessee
David Earnhardt: I also had similar problems with the machine I was voting on that same day, although no vote flipping. I would touch the screen numerous times before I could get my various candidate choices to light up. It was strange and very frustrating. When I finally got through my slate of candidate choices, I could not get the VOTE button to light up when I touched it. I finally called over a poll worker and he told me that I needed to touch lightly. I touched the VOTE button more lightly, but was only able to get it to work after several more failed attempts.
David Earnhardt
Producer/director/writer, "Uncounted"
www.UncountedTheMovie.com |
Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx
Post Number: 330
Registered: 7-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 8:39 pm: |
|
So not only wasn't Nader responsible for Gore's loss (we now know that Nader didn't get enough votes to have cost Gore the election even if the votes had been counted), the fault lies partly with the Democratic Party itself, which adamantly refused to discuss or to allow discussion of election fraud for fear of suppressing voter turnout.
By taking election fraud off the table and calling those of us who tried to discuss it "conspiracy theorists," the Democrats made it impossible to do anything about it sooner by limiting public awareness.
It is quite likely that many of the votes that Nader and other third party and independent candidates did get, were flipped to them by the voting machines rather than intended by the voters.
By blaming Nader and denying that there could have been any election fraud in 2000, the Democrats may have cost themselves the 2004 election.
Isn't it strange, Bev, that when you tried to alert them to election fraud, which would have benefited them greatly had they listened, the response of the Democrats, at least on one large Democratic Party cheerleader website where we were both posting at the time, was to smear you (and me to a lesser extent) with vicious personal attacks?
So I guess if this election is stolen, they're going to blame McKinney along with Nader, instead of facing the fact that they themselves voted for HAVA and wouldn't listen to anyone?
 |
Bev Harris
Board Administrator
Username: Admin
Post Number: 9898
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 22, 2008 - 9:19 pm: |
|
The Democratic Party has a few different contingents, some of which (DLC wing) are corporatist and unfriendly to issues of public sovereignty. The site Mark is referring to is Democratic Underground, which had ties to the Clinton machine. It is true that we were viciously attacked and smeared, to the extent that they also went after my children.
I have been treated courteously, always, by Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney and by all of those from the Obama campaign who have contacted me, and they seem genuinely interested in these issues.
It should be noted that Obama sponsored an act that would have made it illegal to engage in deceptive practices, which we have been seeing.
I heard from many volunteers for the McCain campaign, who have been interested in the issue of non-citizens voting, which is a genuine problem, and who have been interested in the ACORN issue, which is mostly a PR feint designed to draw attention away from the caging and vote suppression tactics we are seeing.
Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr has at times shown an interest in the voting machine issue, and Ralph Nader prepared an excellent presentation on issues with voting machines in 2004, and I accepted his invitation to come to Washington DC to speak with him about this.
I lay quite a bit of blame at the feet of the computer experts who have a significant conflict of interest, in that they often are trying to develop contacts or raise funds for lobbying and career efforts, as well as setting themselves up as paid consultants. Obviously, that doesn't work if you hand count the ballots or stick to publicly observable lever machines. Not surprisingly, the "safe" approach for many politicians was to ask the computer experts for their opinions, and they kept their own careers front and center while providing myopic answers that were also self-serving. There was a lot of misleading going on. |
Mark E. Smith
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mymarkx
Post Number: 331
Registered: 7-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, October 23, 2008 - 12:01 am: |
|
Bev, I hope this isn't too far off topic, but I've been predicting that the way this election might be stolen could be for the Republicans to get up a petition to reject the electoral votes of several large blue states, based on allegations of voter fraud.
The Republicans would be unlikely to have solid documented proof of widespread voter fraud (which is extremely rare). But unlike the Congressional Black Caucus petition in 2000 (since Al Gore had asked the Democratic Senators not to sign the CBC petition, they were unable to get a single Senator's signature and their petition was rejected despite solid evidence of illegal voter purging in Florida), the Republicans, in my estimation, would have no difficulty getting the signatures of Republican Senators, and probably even the signature of Joe Lieberman, who is nominally a Democratic Senator.
If such a petition was signed, it would have to be accepted, brought up for discussion and voted upon. I do not trust the Congressional Democrats not to vote with the Republicans, even if it means betraying their own constituents, as they have done precisely that many times, war funding, the Military Commissions Act, the Mukasey confirmation, and the bailout being some notable instances.
Barack Obama may have become aware of this possibility, as I've heard that he has asked for Attorney General Mukasey to investigate the whole voter fraud brouhaha. Of course he may have had other reasons for his request. But based upon Mukasey's record, I don't see much chance of him doing anything effective prior to the election.
I wonder if Obama has any other possible courses of action. My fear, and it could just be baseless paranoia, of course, is that we could have a situation where once again the popular vote is not taken into account in selecting the President, as happened in 2000 and 2004.
Theoretically, I believe it possible that the electoral votes of several large states could be rejected due to allegations of voter fraud, no matter how spurious such allegationa may be, since the facts of a matter do not necessarily determine how Members of Congress will vote. Often votes are based upon the position of their party leadership rather than on a judicious assessment of the relevant facts.
Having watched two Democratic Presidential candidates in a row concede to their Republican opponent for what they claimed was "the good of the country," without a peep from the Democratic Party, I've come to believe, rightly or wrongly, that the Democrats may prefer to have Republicans in the White House so that they can lay the blame for everything that they vote for at the feet of the Republicans (It's not my fault, Ma, Johnny made me do it!) and continue to claim to be the "lesser evil," which they could not do unless there was a greater evil. Were the Democrats to control both Congress (which appears very likely) and the White House, they'd no longer be able to blame their DLC leadership's corporatist agenda on the Republicans.
So I can readily picture the Congressional Democrats voting along with the Republicans to reject the electoral votes of several large blue states. Although I've since been banned from the website where I posted this, my short essay, "America the Loony Bin," expresses my observations of how the Democratic Party doesn't have to concern itself with losing its base because Democratic voters tend to rationalize every betrayal:
http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/diarypage.php?did=9884
According to the polls, Congressional Democrats have less than a 10% approval rating among Democratic voters, yet they can count on a much larger turnout consisting primarily of voters who will hold their noses and vote for a candidate and party they do not approve of, on the basis of "lesser evilism."
I've also seen what I perceive to be some thinly veiled racist hate speech against Obama posted on supposedly progressive websites, so it wouldn't surprise me at all if his party sells him out.
Such things couldn't happen if our Constitution allowed us to vote directly for President and Vice-President and the popular vote was the sole and final determining factor in who took office. If that were the case, then all we'd have to worry about would be election fraud. |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 60
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, October 28, 2008 - 5:26 pm: |
|
The vote flipping described at the top of this string is an example of what can happen when a touch screen is far out of calibration.
Screens are supposed to be recalibrated before every election.
The calibration process is simple, and takes only a few minutes. But the process requires fine motor skills, so not everyone can do it correctly. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 - 4:41 pm: |
|
Mark M.,
Is your implication that one needn't be part of the software/hardware vendor's (vendors') teams to create this situation?
...that there is a wider range of people who might be assigned responsibility for calibrating (or intentionally miscalibrating, or inadvertently miscalibrating) any given machine?
And wouldn't we see far more accounts of this if it was a miscalibration issue -- as opposed to a misprogramming issue? Wouldn't miscalibration result in
(1) consistent flipping, with far more voters noticing and reporting the problem,
and/or
(2) the active fields for other candidates also being miscalibrated? |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 63
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 2:33 pm: |
|
Some election authorities program their own tabulators. Others hire the vendors or vendor representatives to do so.
Whoever programs and maintains the DREs and sets them up for the election is supposed to check the calibration. Screens CAN be miscalibrated intentionally, but a far more prevalent problem is screens can lose calibration over time.
IF a screen is badly miscalibrated, ALL contests will be impacted until the machine is shut down, powered up and recalibrated.
Unfortunately, the care of voting equipment is very inconsistent. During the years that I worked in the industry, I encountered many situations where election authorities barely maintained their equipment. But I also worked with others who carefully maintained their tabulators and followed all vendor recomendations. Compare it to auto maintenance... some folks treat their cars better than their spouses, while others do absolutely nothing to the car until the tank runs dry, when they add gas. Caring for election "stuff" is like that. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 210
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Thursday, October 30, 2008 - 6:29 pm: |
|
So, was my surmise in ignorance on target...
that if this is happening sporadically,
as opposed to consistently,
& is only, or overwhelmingly, occurring in one direction, or disfavoring one candidate...
it isn't a calibration issue, it's a programming issue? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1061
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 3:40 am: |
|
Mark Michaels said:
Unfortunately, the care of voting equipment is very inconsistent. During the years that I worked in the industry, I encountered many situations where election authorities barely maintained their equipment. But I also worked with others who carefully maintained their tabulators and followed all vendor recomendations. Compare it to auto maintenance... some folks treat their cars better than their spouses, while others do absolutely nothing to the car until the tank runs dry, when they add gas. Caring for election "stuff" is like that.
That's a great common sense insight, Mark. In this election, it is egregiously negligent not to have done PM on those machines -- again, not just doing PM but the quality of the PM that is done would seem like it could determine whether or not the machines reliably function on election day. |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 198
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 4:09 am: |
|
And some cars are troublesome and unreliable even with proper maintenance. |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 199
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 4:16 am: |
|
If a pen were skipping and sometimes didn't write, we'd toss it and get another (or use a pencil!).
The fundamental problem is that we continue to use these devices. The source of the problem may be important in some ways, but from a system perspective, the system (which includes the maintenance and use as well as the device) doesn't work reliably and does not inspire confidence in the outcome.
We have a greater commitment to our election systems, including the machines, than our commitment to election integrity itself! |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 64
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 4:43 am: |
|
Good point, Bob. But what is the alternative? |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 201
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 6:25 am: |
|
Pen, paper? |
christine c reid
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Ctwatcher
Post Number: 1062
Registered: 12-2007
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 8:11 am: |
|
Can we go back to the "if they can build an ATM" conversation? Really, really is it that we can't do this technically or that regularly producing a decent election is a question of will/commitment expressed in laws, budgets, oversight, enforcement?
WE have not even seriously optimized this shoddy system -- it's NOT like we're doing the best we can with it. The hardware is shoddy, the election administration laws are often porous, the enforcement is spotty, the on-the-ground execution and knowledge of the laws/regs/procedures is uneven, and the PUBLIC IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY AWARE AND ENGAGED.
Remember Lisa's story about asking her clerk to watch a simple video, of which the clerk was unaware? I have a very big suspcion that such a comment doesn't happen very often in these election offices -- or certainly hasn't until now.
Election officials are not accustomed to routine examination by citizens providing oversight. There's such a low level of citizen awareness/involvement in the nuts and bolts of elections that if a citizen does decide to get involved, they should take along a safety net so that when they show up and do a freedom of information request or ask questions and the election official's jaw drops on the floor, that jaw is not severely damaged.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant (or preventative medicine). To get the officials to have the motivation to focus, fix, strive -- paying attention and communicating that attention goes a LONG way. So if you don't know the answer, don't worry. Just ask good questions and show that you as a citizen are not asleep at the wheel It will help. |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 203
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 8:18 am: |
|
If decent machines can be built (and I'm not conceding that it is possible), they will require more time and effort (and money) to develop and produce. That won't be done unless we reject shoddy machines, which means refuse to use them (and our officials refuse to buy them, or our courts force them to refuse). |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 65
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 9:51 am: |
|
I agree with both of you. I think the current generations of machines from all vendors were rushed to market before they were fully developed. Part of the blame can be placed on HAVA... machines and software that were under development were certified and sold before all the bugs were worked out. R&D time was cut very short to meet Federal and state deadlines.
Vendors are forced to create systems to meet a wide range of federal and state requirements which sometimes conflict with each other. The resulting products are the results of many compromises.
I agree that using paper ballots is better than the DREs. But then the question becomes how will the ballots be counted? How will a ballot be checked before the voter leaves the polling place to make sure the ballot has been marked correctly? If ballots are voted by hand, how can we ensure they are counted correctly?
A good starting point will be Federal control of certification and universal election statutes. But that will never happen because States won't yield their constitutional right to manage their own election process.
All of this has been discussed on other threads, so it doesn't belong on this one. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 211
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 10:34 am: |
|
If decent machines can be built (and I'm not conceding that it is possible), they will require more time and effort (and money) to develop and produce.
Doesn't seem to be a problem paying that money for machines that have already proven hackable.
machines and software that were under development were certified and sold before all the bugs were worked out.
The choices states have made to purchase systems that have already been proven hackable (& where evidence exists that they've already been applied to that purpose) invites serious question whether (?at least in some cases?) overquick certificatn is more PRcover than activating motivatn?
.."sold before all the bugs worked out" tastes to me like a ?pre-facto? "Ooops!" excuse.
Who is working out the bugs found in 2000 2002 2004 2008primaries?
Are they working them out or improving the bugs' cover, or (alternatively) the cover stories as to why they are there?
Who is watching over their shoulder, or QAing their finished work, to see?
Seems like we've collected a lot of case-by-case answers to those questions all over this site.
A good starting point will be Federal control of certification and universal election statutes.
Isn't that what HAVA seeks to be -- as much as it can manage to?
Haven't we tasted the StandardOperating Federal herd of TrojanHorses in what HAVA delivers?
Doesn't Federal control of ... universal statutes centralize/bottleneck a pt of corruptibility while multiplying the significance/effects of that bottlenecked point?
Don't we have a lot of egs,
in a lot of decades & issue-realms,
of laws that are put on the books so everyone can say it's been taken care of, & go back to biz/sleep/fun/whatever?
...a large cumulation of experiences where putting a law on the books very often doesn't mean enforcing the law
...or means enforcing it in least important cases to provide a fig leaf of egs showing it
has been enforced (as if to say where lawbreaking occurs)
while not enforcing it where the lawbreakings' effects are most significant
(as if to say lawbreaking must not have occurred becuz we can pt to egs of enforcement elsewhere)?
This last goes directly back to Lisa's (my own, possibly your) experience inviting folk to do the reading re: this & other issues.
A real effective cover isn't necessary,
all that's needed for a large # of UScitizens is a quick line that offers the appearance of a fig leaf...the above is one eg of providing such.
Finally, & this one is more complexly a question in my mind than the above statements phrased as questions:
Aren't state govts more w/in reach of citizen attention than the Fed govt (I realize this is complicated question--but fed govt's track record seems to get seamier by the decade)? |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2249
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 12:59 pm: |
|
quote:The calibration process is simple, and takes only a few minutes. But the process requires fine motor skills, so not everyone can do it correctly.
QUESTION TO THINK ABOUT:
If it takes fine motor skills to calibrate it, why doesn't it take fine motor skills to vote on it? |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 67
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Friday, October 31, 2008 - 6:39 pm: |
|
The calibrator must be able to touch precisely the exact centers of a series of plus signs. The intersection points are quite small.
The area a voter must touch to vote for a candidate is very large in comparison.
You want accurate calibration because there is not a dead zone between candidates on the screen.
On a badly miscalibrated screen, the candidate area that is visible is not the "live" area for that candidate. Calibration ensures that the display area matches the active response area.
There is no way for the person preparing the election programming to miscalibrate the election. Deliberate miscalibration would have to be set on each tabulator. I don't know of any way to use the software to cause flipping from one candidate to another. |
Catherine Ansbro
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Catherine_a
Post Number: 5343
Registered: 12-2004
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2008 - 4:37 am: |
|
quote: Deliberate miscalibration would have to be set on each tabulator.
Exactly. Changing a small percentage of votes one just a few machines in just a few well-selected polling places can indeed change election results. For a federal or state election one could use this tactic as one of several.
Keep in mind that vote rigging may be used for any kind of election or ballot proposal. Changing the results of a local election or funding/zoning proposition could require changing only a small number of votes in some cases.
quote: I don't know of any way to use the software to cause flipping from one candidate to another.
While this may not be your personal area of expertise, posts here indicate that it is quite simple to accomplish. There are a number of ways to do this, some easier than others. They include using software, firmware, boot loader etc., depending on the specific machine. |
Bob Fleischer
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Rjf7r
Post Number: 205
Registered: 9-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 2 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2008 - 4:52 am: |
|
One of the things I've learned about election procedures that is the most shocking is that there are quite a few upright, well-intentioned citizens who nevertheless see nothing wrong with "tuning" procedures -- and I would assume machines -- to give "their side" a little edge. I think this is especially true when so many of the choices and issues facing voters are perceived to be serious moral and security issues. For almost all of us, the ends may justify the means for certain ends.
We are perhaps expecting far too much of our election officials to be "above the fray", to be superhuman (or inhuman) and dispassionate when the entire political world is working to raise passions. Perhaps we need to rethink our election structures entirely so that every level -- even the Secretaries of State -- are bipartisan (or even multi-partisan). |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 213
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Saturday, November 1, 2008 - 11:04 am: |
|
I'd really like Bob's last idea,
if we had more than these 2 parties,
which agree on bad ways too easily too often.
Groups of folk who disagree but must come to consensus in key jobs?
Put 'em on YouTube while they talk each decision over!
We could stand a healthier dose of transparent accountability after they're elected TOO (or is it !!Especially!!). |
Brant Lamb
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Brantl
Post Number: 2252
Registered: 1-2005
Best of Black Box?
Votes: 1 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 12:35 pm: |
|
Not having dead zones between candidate choices is a design/usage flaw. That's just poorly thought out. Dead space is your friend. |
Joel Morine
Frequent Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Erased
Post Number: 221
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 - 5:14 pm: |
|
That's an excellent point Brant...
given the popularity & weakness of the "miscalibration" excuse for this problem.
A case of designing a built-in blame-the-user excuse?
It's not as if that use of dead-space is some unprecedented uncommon innovation. |
Mark Michaels
Voting Rights Forum Participant
Username: Mark_michaels
Post Number: 70
Registered: 1-2008
Best of Black Box? N/A
Votes: 0 (A keeper?) | | Posted on Wednesday, November 5, 2008 - 7:47 am: |
|
In the early days of touch screens there WAS more dead space between candidates. The vendors were asked to make the live zone bigger so touching the screen would be easier for voters. |
|
|
